sirozha

DAalseth said:

Something I don't understand. The US may be pissed with the company for violating the US law. They have the right to block export to the company, and the import and sale of the companies products into the US. To even lay fines on the company and seize its assets in the US.
But how can they look at criminally charging a Chinese citizen who works for a Chinese company that is doing business in China?
Does this mean that Saudi Arabia could demand my extradition for violating their Apostasy laws?
Could Russia demand my extradition for slandering Putin and his criminal regime?
The US has a beef with the company, but why would they have any jurisdiction for criminal charges?

Let me make it very clear to you. Canada would not have detained her if there were no legal grounds for it. Canada doesn't need to spoil its relations with China. There was a good reason to arrest her. 

As for Trump's beef with China, aside from the mess that this would make with the stock market in general and AAPL price in particular, China needs to be punished for the trade imbalance and IP theft. China has stolen so much IP that they are now trying to go completely autonomous by 2025. Not only did we outsource our production to them almost entirely, but we also allowed them to steal almost all IP from us, which has has been going on for 20 years now. If we don't punish them now, they will take over the world in 7 years. This is the last chance to stop their advance at our expense. Trump or no Trump, this must be done. I stand to lose so much because of this, but I would rather the world stopped China now at the expense of losing a big chunk of my wealth than lose all of my wealth within the next 20 years when the US economy gets completely decimated by China. 

The riders are also test ones. They are Google employees.

Wall Street is not paying much attention to the financials. They want to see growth. Apple can’t show growth anymore, but the financials are strong. Apple took away volume data from Wall Street, so Wall Street doesn’t know how to value AAPL anymore. 

Personally, I think it’s bonkers that AMZN is valued so incredibly high by Wall Street, and I think that thenprofit that Apple makes must be factored in its valuation. However, it’s also true that Tim Cook has no clue what to do with the hundreds of billions that Apple has accumulated. All Tim knows what to do is to blow the profits on buybacks. Maybe if Apple buys back enough shares, I can live on the dividend alone and not care about the share price anymore. 

hentaiboy said:

lordjohnwhorfin said:

Looks like a concerted effort to kick the stock while it’s down in order to depress it as much as possible, buy at an artificially created low point, and enjoy the profits after the results for the lucrative holiday season are released.

Yeah I tried to buy AAPL this morning but some dead president put a halt to that. 

Classy. 

Mike Wuerthele said:

sirozha said:

Tesla Model S for over $100,000 is way overpriced. Ten years from now, an EV sedan comparable to Model S will cost under $50,000 in today’s dollars. If an EV manufacturer jacks up the price from $50,000 to $75,000 ten years from now, should you be comparing the price to the price of Model 3 ten years prior or should you base such a comparison on the contemporaneous prices of competitive EV sedans?

It’s obvious that prices go down as the technology matures. To go decades back in time to bring those prices from the dead seems to be a curious thing to do. 

FTA: "Apple has always made you pay a lot for its newest and best Macs, and, believe it or not, the 2018 lineup isn't even close to the most expensive Apple has ever been. AppleInsider takes a look back at Apple's Mac pricing over the last three decades."

This is what we wrote. This isn't about cars, it isn't about comparing to Windows. This is literally addressing the whining that only Tim Cook has sold macs for so much money -- which is nonsense.

In a static technology, like cars, prices can drop as technology matures. They don't always. I don't think electric cars will. Given Moore's law up until a few years ago, and the slowing now, computer technology isn't static and you are getting more computer for the same money -- or less. That is literally the point of this article.

I know it’s not about cars. In the era that you wrote your article about, the Mac platform was intended mostly for professionals and for those who were willing to pay those high prices. Since the introduction of the iPod, Apple has gone for the masses. Apple hasn’t relied on high-ticket lower volume sales for close to two decades now. Volume for Apple matters a great deal. In fact, Apple completely dropped the server line and all but discontinued Mac Pro in the last decade, which were the highest-ticket items. 

The pricing structure should take into account the fact that Apple relies on the mainstream consumer for its success. A six-core 32 GB RAM 2TB SSD laptop is not a mainstream laptop for sure (it’s a Pro-level machine), but a quad-core 16 GB 512 GB SSD laptop is a mainstream laptop configuration nowadays. The Pro-level machines can cost north of $4,000, but the mainstream computers should be priced right around $2,000 for most people to consider them as viable options. The lower-end machines should be close to $1,000. 

2018 non-Pro Macs are about $500-$1000 overpriced, and these prices cause consternation among the Apple’s faithful. 

I do agree that the true Pro-level machines can cost whatever price Apple wants to charge, as they are means of production for highly paid occupations.